I'm sorry that this happened to you. It's never easy no matter the circumstances. Remind yourself that you've always landed on your feet before and no matter how bad something seems at the time, somehow these changes tend to result in a better situation than you had before.

Now, now, Turtledove, the Captain doesn't want to hear that liberal bullshit. He wants the strong arm of conservative philosophy.

Captain, you lost your job because you are a lazy thug, probably on drugs, with low moral character. If you had been more productive the job creators would have never fired you. The fact that you were an employee itself indicates that you are a lazy, good-for-nothing welfare queen. You are a job taker, not a job maker! If you had the sense to excel at insider trader and not get caught, or if caught not prosecuted, then you wouldn't have this problem.

Now either start a corporation and exploit third world labor or go sign up for Obamacare like the rest of the commies!

Additionally, Miami will be underwater and tens of millions of people will be exposed to malaria as the mosquito line increases. But hey, who cares about others, right?

Furthermore, a carbon tax used for carbon sequestering and pollution controls hardly count as hysteria. Hysteria is forcing the public to go through rape scanners because of 9/11, something that could have easily been prevented by locking the cockpit door and something that none of the security measures and civil rights violations would have prevented.

If climate change policy is too damn expensive, we could always cut the military budget by 90%. That will make plenty of revenue available. Unless of course you're hysterical about a bunch of Arabs on camels invading the U.S.

Only idiots like you would believe a claim like that. Intelligent people couldn't figure out that taking dried plant material, rolling it in paper, lighting it on fire and inhaling the smoke was going to be perfectly healthy for them?

1. I never believed the lies of the Tobacco industry.
2. Whether or not people where dumb to believe those lies does not change the fact that the people claiming that climate change is not real are the same people who claimed that smoking didn't cause cancer.
3. Only idiots like you would believe that man-made climate change isn't real at this point in history.

That alone disqualifies him to be president. The last thing we need is yet another president who doesn't give a shit about human or civil rights or the basic principles upon which our country was founded. Assholes like him should be deported to North Korea where they can bask in the glorious leader's presence.

Well, they are all linked in that
1. Big tobacco hired fake scientists to spread doubt that smoking causes cancer.
2. These fake scientists also convinced government that couches, rather than cigarettes, were the cause of house fires which lead to laws requiring toxic chemicals being sprayed on couches, chemicals which have caused harm to people.
3. These same fake scientists and lobbyists are now trying to make big bucks from big oil to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt on climate change and climate change policy.

So, yes, they are related in that the same asshole individuals are involved in all three campaigns of misinformation.

The real question is why an unemployed, bigoted asswipe like you is helping them instead of protesting that Obama can't be president because he was born in Kenya.

Ah, CIC, the person quoting petitions signed by Hawkeye from M*A*S*H is complaining about my sources.

A climate change expert according to CIC.

Here's a list of organizations that state unequivocally that man-made climate is real. Which ones of them are not credible to you?

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

“NASA has always been about looking out to the skies and beyond, not burying our heads in the sand,” climate scientist Michael Mann told Universe Today in an email “This is an old ploy, trying to cobble together a small group of individuals and make it sound like they speak with authority on a matter that they have really not studied closely. In this case, the effort was led by a fossil fuel industry-funded (climate change) denier who works for the Heartland Institute, and sadly he managed to manipulate this group of former NASA employees into signing on to this misguided statement.”

Mann added that 49 people out of tens of thousands of former and current NASA employees is just a tiny fraction, and that “NASA’s official stance, which represents the full current 16,000 NASA scientists and employees, is clear if you go to their website or look at their official publications: human-caused climate change is real, and it represents a challenge we must confront.”

Christ, what's next CIC? Are you going to quote the National Realtor's Association on whether or not you should leverage yourself to the hilt to buy as many houses as possible?

When former NASA administrators, astronauts and engineers released a letter earlier this week attacking the science of climate change, its veneer of legitimacy kicked off a media blitz. Yet none of the letter's 49 signatories are climate scientists, and with more than 18,000 people currently working for NASA, to say nothing of the tens of thousands more who are retired, the letter seems more than anything like an empty publicity stunt, and one for which there's considerable precedent.

"When you have an area of the science where there is a consensus like in climate change, where the problem is real and the scientific implications are on a collision course with vested interests like the fossil fuel industry, you often see this," said Michael Mann, a well-known climate scientist and Penn State professor.

NASA has been clear that it firmly accepts the reality of the science behind climate change, including the work of renowned climate scientist James Hansen, so complaints from a few dozen retired NASA administrators and a handful of astronauts and engineers calling on NASA to stop saying that anthropogenic carbon dioxide causes climate change can hardly be taken seriously.

A full 98 percent of all working climate scientists affirm anthropogenic climate change, according to a paper published in 2010 in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found the evidence that the world is warming to be "unequivocal."

"They can't discredit the science in the legitimate sphere of scientific debate, which is to say, the peer-reviewed literature, the various assessment reports published by various governments ... so what they try to do is create the illusion that the science is being hotly contested by finding the small group, often of curmudgeonly individuals, who might feel left out," said Mann, who documents this recurrent phenomenon in his newly released book, "The Hockey Stick And The Climate Wars: Dispatches From The Front Lines."

There's a long history of climate deniers who write such letters (their preferred vehicle) to voice their discontent. The much-discussed Oregon Petition has been repeatedly debunked, with both the scientific credentials and the authenticity of its signatories' names being called into question. When Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories, for instance, only "11 said they still agreed with the petition -- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages."

Please note that the Oregon Petition mentioned in this article and the previous two articles is another lie that CIC posts about climate change. It's a bunch of forgeries and pseudo-scientists and was written by lobbyists paid for by big oil.

These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.

We have seen many examples of climate denialists producing long lists of fake experts, for example the Oregon Petition and the Wall Street Journal 16. Now we have yet another of these lists of fake experts. 49 former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) employees (led by Harrison Schmitt, who was also one of the Wall Street Journal 16) have registered their objection to mainstream climate science through the most popular medium of expressing climate contrarianism - a letter. As is usually the case in these climate contrarian letters, this one has no scientific content, and is written by individuals with not an ounce of climate science expertise, but who nevertheless have the audacity to tell climate scientists what they should think about climate science.

On the one hand we have a bunch of former administrators, astronauts, and engineers who between them have zero climate expertise and zero climate science publications.

On the other hand we have the climate scientists at NASA GISS who between them have decades, perhaps even centuries of combined professional climate research experience, and hundreds, perhaps even thousands of peer-reviewed climate science publications.

YES, you are a moron. NO, the letter does not indicated that climatologists, or for that matter scientists in general, believe the LIE in the letter that NASA is promoting science that "is NOT settled".

The truth is the science is settled just like the science of smoking causing cancer. The truth is that no climatologist signed that letter. The truth is that over 18,000 people currently work for NASA and they are all on page with climate change.

The only thing the letter shows is that out of the over 400,000 people who have worked for NASA, 49 or 0.012% of them are right-wing nutbags who let their political view obscure scientific facts. Given that for the general American population it's 30%, that's pretty damn good.

The letter was filled with no less than six serious errors regarding the science, data, and facts of climate science. The errors, in turn, exposed that the signers had confused their fame and/or their expertise in unrelated fields with expertise in climate science. And in response, NASA’s chief scientist politely suggested that the letter’s authors and signers should publish any contrary hypotheses and data in peer-reviewed scientific journals instead of trying to censor the publication of scientific conclusions from NASA climate scientists.

The first error in the letter is that the authors and signers deny that “empirical data” shows “man-made carbon dioxide” is having an impact on global climate disruption:

We believe the claims by NASA and GISS that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.

In reality, “thousands of years of empirical data” do substantiate the claim that man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) is driving global climate change. Michael Mann, Ray Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes demonstrated that modern warming of the Northern Hemisphere was very likely greater than at any period in the last 2000 years first in 1999, then again in 2008, and it’s been verified repeatedly by independent researchers Wahl and Ammann in 2007, Huang et al in 2000, Smith et al in 2006, and others.

The second error is that only a few climate scientists have declared that they deny the science underlying human-driven climate disruption, not the “hundreds” the letter claims. While the letter doesn’t provide any support for this allegation (yet another serious error), this is likely a reference to Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe’s December 2008 “Senate Minority Report” of about a supposed 700 scientists who deny human-driven climate disruption. The Center for Inquiry performed a detailed analysis of Inhofe’s list and discovered that:

Slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists. [about 70]
Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science. [about 135]
Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all. [about 560]
Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list. [about 28 – notes added by editor]

The third error is the letter’s reference to “tens of thousands of other scientists” who supposedly deny climate disruption. Unlike the vagueness of the second error, this reference can only mean one list, namely the list of approximately 31,000 alleged scientists collected by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

The OISM’s list of names would be laughable if people didn’t refer to it in a naive or dishonest attempt to deny the remarkable agreement among climate scientists (and actual scientists in general) about the human-driven nature of climate disruption.

The fourth error is that the letter twice uses the subjective, unscientific term “catastrophic” in reference to climate disruption.

Scientists don’t use the term “catastrophic,” and there’s a good reason for that: try to define exactly what you mean by “catastrophic” in an objective way.

he term “catastrophic” is used almost exclusively by people who oppose adaptation and/or mitigation of the projected outcomes of human-driven climate disruption, and it’s used in an attempt to make climate scientists appear biased or extreme. Actual climate scientists, on the other hand, simply describe what they project will occur in an objective manner, just as unbiased scientists should.

The fifth error is that the letter claims that there hasn’t been a “thorough study” of “natural climate drivers.”

[W]e feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate.

Natural factors in climate change – solar variability, Milankovic cycles, volcanism, El Nino, even cosmic rays – have been investigated very thoroughly, and none of the natural factors are capable of generating the observed disruptions in the global climate. The impacts of natural drivers on climate disruption have been investigated repeatedly and in detail

That’s 13 different ways we know that human activity is driving global climate disruption, and six major peer-reviewed scientific papers that describe just how much is driven by human activity vs. natural factors.

The sixth error is that the letter claims NASA is making “unproven” and “unsupported” remarks about climate disruption and asks NASA to not make any more. The analysis of the five prior errors shows just how wrong this really is – there’s a massive amount of proof and support that human activity, namely burning fossil fuels and agriculture, are the primary driver of climate disruption. But in case there’s any question of that, here’s a link to Skeptical Science’s list of climate myths, with detailed rebuttals supported by referenced peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals: Taxonomy of Climate Myths.

And in case that’s not enough, we can recount a few of the established physical laws and properties of CO2 that would all be wrong if human activity wasn’t the dominant driver of climate disruption today:

And that’s just a short list. The man-made nature of climate disruption is based on so many well established, basic physical principles that it can’t be rationally disputed without shattering large portions of modern science (physics, chemistry, biology, and geology just for starters) and ignoring most of the modern technology (GPS, IR cameras, heat-seeking missiles, weather satellites, etc.) that was successfully designed and built using that science.

So, once again CIC tries to pass on hacks as experts and the lunatic fringe as legitimate debate.

There are more people who believe the Earth is flat than buy into CIC's bullshit. There are more people who believe the sun and the entire universe revolves around the Earth than believe that climate change science is still unsettled. But ultimately, it doesn't matter what you believe. Man-made climate change is real, urgent, and disastrous. The science is already in. Actual effects like rising sea levels are already here. Miami already has had to spend tax dollars dealing with rising sea levels because our federal government allows so much pollution. One way or another, man-made climate change is going to have a huge impact on your wallet regardless of how many fools deny it.

It's free and you can post any original content you want. It's also easy to embed YouTube videos in you web sites, web apps, desktop apps, and mobile apps.

Also, people have heard of YouTube. I've never heard of Spreecast, but a cursory look at their website doesn't show me anything you can't do either on YouTube or your own website with embedded YouTube links.

Sorry, CIC, but climate change purists like Dan will tolerate no heretical discourse on their religion.

Translation: I'm a conservative nut job that cannot discuss the science of climate change because it's conclusive. So I'll posion the well in the hopes that the audience is stupid enough to fall for my deception.

This is nothing less than a lie of another kind. It is precisely because there are mountains of evidence from a multitude of independent lines gathered by scientists across the world from every nation that I, and any rational person, accept the reality of man-made climate change. At this point, anyone denying man-made climate change is a lying scumbag or a religious nut or both.

There is more evidence supporting man-made climate change than there is supporting that the Earth is round. That means you sound even more ridiculous than a flat-Earther when you deny the facts of climate change. And you deserve even less respect.

You mean like the fact that Robert Kenner was referring to climate change deniers when he said, and these are the full quotes,

At 00:45

Kenner: It started with tobacco. For fifty years they were able to create doubt around a product where we knew this product caused cancer and was addictive, and they were able keep questions alive as to whether this was true. And actually today they have to take out ads saying they lied. And thank god that they have to, but it took a long time for that to happen.

Maher: And that was the first one, tobacco.

Kenner: They were really good at it. Those same people went to work for multiple products.

At 2:30

Kenner: These people went on from tobacco to pharmaceuticals to into Global Warming which is the next big payday. Richard Berman was recorded at a conference in Colorado saying "you can either lose pretty, or win ugly, and I can help you win" and these guys are ready to do whatever it takes to go sell their product.

The fact that CIC can lie so badly about a video that is less than three minutes long shows how dishonest and despicable he truly is.

Richard Berman, the asshole photographed above, is one of the lobbyists promoting climate change denial. From The New York Times

“Think of this as an endless war,” Mr. Berman told the crowd at the June event in Colorado Springs, sponsored by the Western Energy Alliance, a group whose members include Devon Energy, Halliburton and Anadarko Petroleum, which specialize in extracting oil and gas through hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking. “And you have to budget for it.”

Mr. Berman is well known in Washington for his technique of creating nonprofit groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom that secretly collect corporate donations to finance the aggressive, often satirical media campaigns his team conceives. They are intended to undermine his opponents, like labor unions or animal rights groups that have tried to spotlight the treatment of animals at meatpacking plants.

“I get up every morning and I try to figure out how to screw with the labor unions — that’s my offense,” Mr. Berman said in his speech to the Western Energy Alliance. “I am just trying to figure out how I am going to reduce their brand.”

Mr. Berman repeatedly boasted about how he could take checks from the oil and gas industry executives — he said he had already collected six-figure contributions from some of the executives in the room — and then hide their role in funding his campaigns.

“People always ask me one question all the time: ‘How do I know that I won’t be found out as a supporter of what you’re doing?’ ” Mr. Berman told the crowd. “We run all of this stuff through nonprofit organizations that are insulated from having to disclose donors. There is total anonymity. People don’t know who supports us.”

So, keep lying about the three minute video that you think no one will take the time to watch. Every time you do, you just dig yourself a deeper hole and demonstrate why conservatives are the scum of the earth.

Ah, the mantra of a liar: answer my question in only one word and don't explain anything! So, Call it Crazy, have you stopped raping dead babies yet? One word answer: YES or NO!

The quotes, which are incomplete as indicated by those ellipses you've used are referring to climate change deniers, not the climate change scientists who have proven that man-made climate change is real and significant. So you are absolutely lying as evident to anyone who watches the video. You are also insulting the intelligence of anyone reading this thread with such an obvious lie.

Most of all, you are demonstrating your complete inability to be honest in any discussion.

You should stick to giving blow jobs to the animals at the petting zoo. It's the only thing you're good at.

..."you can either lose pretty, or win ugly, and I can help you win"...

..."these guys are ready to do whatever it takes to go sell their product"...

Referring, of course, to the Merchants of Doubt who denied smoking causes cancer, denied that cigarettes started house fires, and now are profiting from massive money spent by the Koch Brothers to delay climate policy.

Once again, CIC demonstrates that the only argument he's capable of making is a lie.

You know, I doubt that he's even married like he claims. I don't think Buttfuck, Arkansas recognizes man-sheep marriage.

Except that I live in a house. If you can't accept such a simple and indisputable fact, it's no wonder you're delusional.

I can only guess that, despite the fact that the vast majority of people my age in South Florida live in houses, you must think that's implausible because you live in a run down trailer in Tickle Creek.

That's funny, coming from the fat nerd that sits all alone in his apartment with no girlfriend, wife, family, kids, pets, etc. in Boca Raton and spends the bulk of his time on Youtube...

1. 155 lbs at 5'11" is not fat.
2. I live in a house, not an apartment.
3. I've had far more sexual partners than you, not to mention way better.
4. Getting a crappy, fat American wife and pooping out kids is not an accomplishment.
5. Boca Raton, FL is a hell of lot nicer than whatever backwater creek you live in. Hmmm, maybe CIC lives in Tickle Creek? Would explain a lot.
6. Just because I know how to use the search feature in YouTube doesn't mean I spend the bulk of my time there. I suppose to a technologically illiterate luddite like you it must seem like it takes countless decades to master a search textbox.